So it's been one of the oldest debates in gaming - Does hardware make you a better player? If you listen to ads from Logitech, Nvidia, and other retailers, they will tell you that you will lose big time without their latest and greatest chips and mice.
Players straddle the fence, with some thinking they do not need to bust one hundred dollars on that new mouse, while some swear their G5 makes all the difference.
I thought I'd weigh in on this.
Here is where I am coming from.
My computer is running a 2.
4 Ghz dual core AMD processor, 2 GB of RAM, and two Nvidia 7900's running in SLI.
For peripherals, I have a Merc keyboard from Ideazon (the guys who make the Zboard), and a Logitech G7.
It's all pretty good hardware that I've built up over the past six months.
I'm not going to comment on sound since for BF2142 it really doesn't make that much of a difference unless you are an audiophile and you're going to have a fit if it doesn't sound absolutely amazing.
Keep in mind this is completely based upon the FPS platform of gaming.
Different genres of games use the computer differently, and in some cases hardware could matter more than others.
Here is my viewpoint in a nutshell: Yes, the best hardware can help, but don't get sucked into the idea that you can't play without it.
Hardware can only take you so far.
My reason for having an expensive keyboard and mouse is that I kind of need them.
For the Merc, I have huge hands, so the larger main keys on the Merc are just what I need.
I have also discovered that my ideal DPI on my mouse is 1850, which you can't get on regular mice.
Anything less is too sluggish, anything more not precise enough for me.
For that, I needed a G5 or a G7, and I like wireless, so it was a G7 for me.
For heavy-RAM usages games like BF2142 (where a majority of the common map files are dumped into RAM and held there as long as the game is open), having less than 1 gig of RAM would be a joke.
However, all faster RAM would do is decrease your load time slightly.
I run BF2142 on max settings, and to a point that helps me.
Having the view distance setting maxed out means I can see farther than someone who has it set to eight-five percent.
Tests proved that with heavy anti-aliasing it was possible to snipe further than even that 100 percent view distance limit.
But here is a good story: When I played in the BF2 Combat tourney one of my favorite maps was called Jungle Stream.
It was a really well-made jungle map with a river and a bunch of hills.
At the bottom of the hills were thick amount of grass to hide in.
I remember sneaking up slowly, crawling on my belly through the dirt to get to a flag undetected, and being picked off time and time again as though they could see through the grass.
I thought they were cheating until a friend (Varsuuk) pointed out that the amount of grass shown is dependent on the Terrain setting.
If you set that to low you see almost no grass.
After that we started setting Terrain to low in order to gain the advantage our enemies knew.
That's an example where playing with the 'best' stuff can actually hurt you.
So will hardware determine whether you are at the top of your game? My opinion is that it depends.
If you have large hands like mine, a Zboard will help with hand cramps and stress, allowing you to play longer without discomfort.
If you find your ideal DPI is 2000, however, then you can easily do well with a mouse that doesn't have fancy features like customizable DPI settings like my G7.
For the graphics and such, there are advantages and disadvantages.
Some people customize the settings to give them the best clarity with the least annoying detail, like dark shadows and grass that inhibit your vision.
Regardless, there are minimums you need to have, such as being able to run the game.
But past a certain point, there's not a real need to upgrade say my 7900s to 8800s.